China Economy Closes On U.s. And Japan

[davidmc]

Is there really strength in diversity as the U.S. claims? Plato, for one, disagreed. Roman generals always used the diversity of people they fought against as a means to "divide and rule". They used these tactics against Britain since Britain around 100 B.C. was a tribal nation made up of groups of Celts and Germans. They were too divided to resist the unified Romans which is something Caesar understood very well.
The Greeks always analysed disunity in other societies. They understood if you arm a dozen or so ethnic groups within a country, the war is half-won before you even send your troops in.
The U.S. in my opinion never was a superpower in the sense it's been portrayed. It was the same thing with the USSR. Both countries were propped up only by nuclear weapons but internally there were all sorts of problems. The U.S. has never been tested by an invading army as Russia was in WW2 and always relied on a huge stack of weapons controlled by a political elite at the top. However, beneath all that, the U.S. has many many chinks in its armour.

Don't forget about 1776. However, more contemporarily, we do have our share of over-fed, inactive, cow's.

 

[sogood]

Is there really strength in diversity as the U.S. claims?

The angle I look at is that the US has been able to attract the most talented people from around the world and accept them into their society and work environment ie. Tolerance. This has been most prominant since the end of WWII and has been an important factor in its technological, economic and political growth. Effectively, countries around the world spend the time, money and energy to train and educate their populace and the best of them goes off to the US to work. This brain drain is a real problem for some countries, Australia included.

 

[Carrera]

I believe it makes sense invest in imported brainpower as it were but maybe China is doing this differently. China now allows Americans to work in China if they're proven to be highly skilled in business or science/technology. The same goes for all imported "specialists".
However, there's a significant difference between China's stance and what we see taking place in Europe and the U.S. European immigration has followed the U.S. pattern of allowing virtually unrestrained immigration so we see thousands of semi-skilled or even unskilled immigrants arriving.
I agree with your point the U.S. benefited from free immigration but we need to also bear in mind U.S. immigration wasn't only directed to foreign specialists. Many criminal gangs or people who don't share democratic ideals (or human rights values) also flooded into the U.S. California especially has a problem with this and even Arnold Schwarzennegger expressed concern over imported gangland rivalry e.t.c.

The angle I look at is that the US has been able to attract the most talented people from around the world and accept them into their society and work environment ie. Tolerance. This has been most prominant since the end of WWII and has been an important factor in its technological, economic and political growth. Effectively, countries around the world spend the time, money and energy to train and educate their populace and the best of them goes off to the US to work. This brain drain is a real problem for some countries, Australia included.

 

[lwedge]

The angle I look at is that the US has been able to attract the most talented people from around the world and accept them into their society and work environment ie. Tolerance. This has been most prominant since the end of WWII and has been an important factor in its technological, economic and political growth. Effectively, countries around the world spend the time, money and energy to train and educate their populace and the best of them goes off to the US to work. This brain drain is a real problem for some countries, Australia included.

What? Einstein was American.... He's from Eugene Oregon!

 

[sogood]

I believe it makes sense invest in imported brainpower as it were but maybe China is doing this differently. China now allows Americans to work in China if they're proven to be highly skilled in business or science/technology. The same goes for all imported "specialists".

My understanding is that that new rule was directed to the number of long term expats who wants to stay longer without suffering from the hassles of regular visa applications. It as a response to that demand from the business community. Given the extent of foreign investment and economic activities, there are a lot of expats who need to stay in China for work or look after their business interests. It's quite different to aim of some business visa categories in other countries eg. Australia, where the main aim was to attract new immigrants and money from overseas. Here in Australia and I suspect similarly in Canada, this category is effectively selling resident status at a price. And yes, that price has risen since its first introduction some years back.

However, there's a significant difference between China's stance and what we see taking place in Europe and the U.S. European immigration has followed the U.S. pattern of allowing virtually unrestrained immigration so we see thousands of semi-skilled or even unskilled immigrants arriving.

Partly agree with that. Although if you look back at the SE Asian Boat People era, it was reported that the US typically picked up all the well educated through its selection criteria while Australia had a lower bar.

I agree with your point the U.S. benefited from free immigration but we need to also bear in mind U.S. immigration wasn't only directed to foreign specialists. Many criminal gangs or people who don't share democratic ideals (or human rights values) also flooded into the U.S. California especially has a problem with this and even Arnold Schwarzennegger expressed concern over imported gangland rivalry e.t.c.

My understanding was that the underworld bosses came with the money, and many of them did. It was then a matter of recruiting the locals for the expansion.